On Point: G. Reasonable suspicion

State v. Brian A. Gottschalk, 2012AP2351, District III (not recommended for publication).  Case activity.

Wow!  Two decisions overruling the denial suppression motions in one day.  In this case, the State charged the defendant  with OWI and operating with a PAC, both as second offenses.  The defendant moved for suppression of evidence on the grounds that the officer seized him without reasonable suspicion. 

Bailey v. United States, USSC No. 11-770, 2/19/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing and remanding United States v. Bailey, 652 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2011)

The Court holds it was not reasonable for police to seize an individual incident to the search of the individual’s residence when the individual was not in the “immediate vicinity” of the place being searched. The holding is an elaboration of the rule from Michigan v.

State v. Melvin Pugh, 2013 WI App 12; case activity

Two officers on patrol saw Pugh near two cars parked next to a vacant, boarded-up building posted with a “no parking” sign. This caused the officers to question Pugh—legitimately—about his possible illegal parking, but during that questioning the police also started asking about a nearby drug house and ended up physically seizing Pugh by grabbing his wrists when he slowly backed away.

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

State v. Andrew Wheaton, 2012AP173-CR

Reasonable Suspicion – OWI

Presence of the following factors establish reasonable suspicion to stop Wheaton for impaired driving:

¶23      The State points to the following as factors that produced an objectively reasonable suspicion of impaired driving at the time of the stop:  (1) Wheaton was driving at 3:05 a.m.,

State v. Randall Lee Sugden, 2012AP408-CR, District 4, 10/15/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Arrest in Richland County by a Sauk County deputy sheriff was justified under the fresh pursuit doctrine, § 175.40(2). State v. Haynes, 2001 WI App 266, 248 Wis. 2d 724, 638 N.W.2d 82, discussed and applied:

¶12      Applying Haynes to the facts of this case,

State v. Jan P. Hogan, 2012AP966-CR, District 4, 10/25/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Reasonable suspicion supported stop of car displaying “dealer imitation” plate (i.e., failing to display permanent or temporary plate in violation of § 341.04(1)). State v. Griffin, 183 Wis. 2d 327, 333, 515 N.W.2d 535 (Ct. App. 1994) (OK to stop car with “license applied for”

State v. Terry E. Nelson, 2012AP1418-CR, District 3, 10/23/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Reasonable suspicion supported stop of vehicle pulling out of driveway of house from which, shortly before, someone had called 911 but then hung up. United States v. Cohen, 481 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2007) (“the virtually complete lack of information conveyed by the silent 911 hang-up call and the total absence of corroborating evidence indicating that criminal activity was afoot requires us to give the 911 hang-up call little weight in evaluating the totality of the circumstances”),

City of Sheboygan v. Herbert Binkowsky, 2012AP974, District 2, 10/17/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

An anonymous call to the police, reporting the commission of domestic violence by a suspect who drove away in a red Cadillac with an identified plate number, was sufficiently corroborated to support a stop of a car matching the description.

¶13      “[I]f a tip contains strong indicia of an informant’s basis of knowledge,

State v. Pamela L. Hammersley, 2012AP1131-CR, District 2, 9/26/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Stop of vehicle, assertedly for violating local trespassing ordinance, held not supportable:

¶3        It is settled law that a stop cannot be based on an officer’s mistaken understanding of the law.  State v. Longcore, 226 Wis. 2d 1, 3-4, 594 N.W.2d 412 (Ct.

State v. Timothy W. Bastian, 2012AP793-CR, District 3, 9/25/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

 The court holds, without resolving the issue of whether reasonable suspicion sufficed, that probable cause supported Bastian’s traffic stop for inattentive driving, given “the circuit court’s factual determination that Bastian was ‘looking towards the passenger seat’”:

¶10      Wisconsin Stat. § 346.89, titled “Inattentive driving,” provides in relevant part:  “No person while driving a motor vehicle shall be so engaged or occupied as to interfere with the safe driving of such vehicle.”  Wis.